[PRL] point-free set notation
David Herman
dherman at ccs.neu.edu
Sat Jan 9 16:33:32 EST 2010
I assume that notation works on both sides? So:
{n}(>) = {m | n > m}
(>){n} = {m | m > n}
Thanks,
Dave
On Jan 9, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Aaron Turon wrote:
> It sounds like you want the relational image. If R is a binary
> relation and X is a set, then RX = {a : a R b, b in X} and XR = {b : a
> R b, a in X}.
>
> So for your example you could write (>){n}, often abbreviated by >n
> when the types are clear.
>
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 3:43 PM, David Herman <dherman at ccs.neu.edu>
> wrote:
>> In Haskell, you can curry a binary operator to define a function
>> without naming the missing argument:
>>
>> (+n) === \m -> (m+n)
>>
>> Is there an analogous notation in math for constructing a set based
>> on
>> a binary relation with an omitted element? For example, I'd like to
>> be
>> able to define the set of integers > n like:
>>
>> { -- > n } === { m | m > n }
>>
>> or something like that. (I'm aware that generally this is a type-
>> ambiguous notation, but for my purposes the meta-variables involved
>> are enough to disambiguate.)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PRL mailing list
>> PRL at lists.ccs.neu.edu
>> https://lists.ccs.neu.edu/bin/listinfo/prl
>>
More information about the PRL
mailing list